Category: clinical study retractions

You will not plagiarise. You will not plagiarise. You will not…but if you do, hypnosis journal will retract

The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis is retracting a 2009 article by researchers who seem to have stolen material from a graduate student — and who are fond of studying memories from past lives in other work.

The article, “Norms for the Korean Version of the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form A,” was written by Yun Joo Kim and Young Don Pyun, of the eponymous Pyun Neuropsychiatric Clinic, in Seoul, South Korea. The Pyun Clinic specializes in “hypnotherapy for psychiatric illness,” according to its website.

Here’s the retraction notice: Continue reading You will not plagiarise. You will not plagiarise. You will not…but if you do, hypnosis journal will retract

Concerns over language in PLoS One autism paper lead to brief withdrawal and correction

via Wikimedia

On September 28, PLoS One published a paper, “The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence II: What about Asperger Syndrome?”

But rather than celebrate another publication for her CV, one of the authors, Michelle Dawson, of Centre d’Excellence en Troubles Envahissants du Développement de l’Université de Montréal (CETEDUM) in Montréal, wasn’t happy. The PLoS One editors had made some changes she didn’t like. And she let everyone on Twitter know: Continue reading Concerns over language in PLoS One autism paper lead to brief withdrawal and correction

Can appendicitis be treated with antibiotics? Retraction muddies the waters

The Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery has retracted a 2009 article for plagiarism, but it almost seems like the editors were looking for any excuse to bail out on the troubled paper.

The article, “Conservative management of acute appendicitis,” by two researchers from Kashmir, India, purported to show that antibiotics might be a safe, surgery-sparing approach to appendicitis in some patients. The study has been cited 14 times by other papers, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowedge. It was also cited in a Consumer Reports article as evidence that as many as 10% of patients “get better without treatment” — a curious interpretation of the data.

But in February 2010, a group of surgeons from Bologna, Italy, challenged the Indian authors in a letter to the journal. The authors expressed interest in the concept, which they said had “significant clinical implications,” but took issue with the methodology of the study: Continue reading Can appendicitis be treated with antibiotics? Retraction muddies the waters

That’s a Mori! Seven more retractions brings latest count to 30

The other day we reported that Naoki Mori had lost his 23rd paper to retraction for image manipulation and duplication. Turns out we were wrong by a pretty wide margin.

The International Journal of Cancer has retracted seven more articles by the disgraced Japanese researcher, all for the same reasons:

The following article has been retracted through agreement between the first author and several coauthors, the journal Editor in-Chief, Peter Lichter, and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. … After an investigation the retraction has been agreed due to inappropriate duplication of images and overlap with other published work.

The papers are as follows: Continue reading That’s a Mori! Seven more retractions brings latest count to 30

Nursing researcher Scott Weber draws penalties from ORI in plagiarism, fraud scandal

Scott Weber, the nursing researcher whose publishing misconduct has cost him posts at the University of Pittsburgh and Walden University, has been sanctioned by the Office of Research Integrity for his misdeeds.

According to a link posted today on the ORI website: Continue reading Nursing researcher Scott Weber draws penalties from ORI in plagiarism, fraud scandal

New in PNAS: Potti retraction number seven, and a Potti correction

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) has published the seventh retraction for former Duke researcher Anil Potti, who now faces a lawsuit in the midst of an ongoing investigation into his work:

Retraction for “A genomic approach to colon cancer risk stratification yields biologic insights into therapeutic opportunities,” by Katherine S. Garman, Chaitanya R. Acharya, Elena Edelman, Marian Grade, Jochen Gaedcke, Shivani Sud, William Barry, Anna Mae Diehl, Dawn Provenzale, Geoffrey S. Ginsburg, B. Michael Ghadimi, Thomas Ried, Joseph R. Nevins, Sayan Mukherjee, David Hsu, and Anil Potti, which appeared in issue 49, December 9, 2008, of Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (105:19432–19437; first published December 2, 2008; 10.1073/pnas.0806674105).

The authors wish to note the following: “We wish to retract this article because we have been unable to reproduce certain key experiments described in the paper regarding validation and use of the colon cancer prognostic signature. This includes the validation performed with dataset E-MEXP-1224, as reported in Fig. 2A, as well as the generation of prognostic scores for colon cancer cell lines, as reported in Fig. 4. Because these results are fundamental to the conclusions of the paper, the authors formally retract the paper. We deeply regret the impact of this action on the work of other investigators.”

The 2008 paper, which has been cited 27 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, was already the subject of a minor 2009 correction: Continue reading New in PNAS: Potti retraction number seven, and a Potti correction

Lack of ethical approval leads to JCO retraction

The Retraction Watch category for “lack of IRB approval” as a reason for retraction — a subject we covered in our most recent Lab Times column — is growing. First there were the 90-odd retractions by Joachim Boldt, then three by Australian researchers studying Aussie-rules football players. Now, we learn that the Journal of Clinical Oncology has retracted a paper over concerns that the authors failed to obtain ethical approval to conduct their study.

The 2010 publication, by researchers at Saitama Medical University in Japan, reported on an analysis of 314 lymphoma patients being treated with chemotherapy — some, and perhaps none, of whom knew they were being studied.

Here’s the notice, which appeared this month: Continue reading Lack of ethical approval leads to JCO retraction

More on Hattori case from co-author: Did grudge lead to scientist’s fall?

We have an update on the case of Yoshiyuki Hattori, the Japanese endocrinologist who has had a half-dozen papers retracted because of issues involving reused data. We’ve reported on some of those retractions, and report on three new ones here.

As a trainee, Hattori spent some time in England, where he met Steven Gross, a prominent pharmacology researcher at Cornell. Gross was impressed with the young physician-scientist, and invited him back to his New York City laboratory to do a postdoc.

Gross’ name appears on one of the retracted articles, “NO suppresses while peroxynitrite sustains NF-κB: a paradigm to rationalize cytoprotective and cytotoxic actions attributed to NO,” which appeared in 2004 in the journal Cardiovascular Research and has been cited 42 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

According to the notice: Continue reading More on Hattori case from co-author: Did grudge lead to scientist’s fall?

Why did Science partially retract the XMRV-chronic fatigue syndrome paper?

If past experience is any indication, billions of pixels will be spilled in the coming days as scientists and advocates debate the latest twist in the story of XMRV, or xenotropic murine leukemia-related virus, and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Today’s news is that Science is partially retracting a 2009 paper by Judy Mikovits and colleagues, including Vincent Lombardi, purporting to show a link between the virus and the syndrome — a paper about which they issued an Expression of Concern in May. The retraction is of a table and a figure — more on that in a bit.

In an excellent blow-by-blow account in Science of the nearly 20-year-long saga, also out today, Jon Cohen and Martin Enserink review the unusual circumstances of that Expression of Concern. Science editor-in-chief Bruce

Alberts and Science Executive Editor Monica Bradford had first suggested that Mikovits and her co-authors retract the paper voluntarily. “Science feels it would be in the best interest of the scientific community,” they wrote in a 26 May letter. Mikovits was livid and questioned Alberts’s motives. “Who wrote that letter? I don’t think it was Science,” she says. The co-authors thought the retraction request was premature, too. “What if we walk away from this based on contamination and it’s not contamination?” Lombardi asked. “You’ve got to give us time to figure this out.”

Alberts stresses that they floated the retraction idea because Science already planned to publish the Expression of Concern. “It wasn’t a public call for retraction,” he notes, emphasizing that the recipients shared it with the media. He also does not think it would have been premature, although he says it’s often a tough call whether to retract a paper. “Ultimately, it requires expert judgment and a lot of sensitivity to the issues,” he says. “We had lost confidence in the results.”

As Science noted in May, two studies accompanied the May Expression of Concern Continue reading Why did Science partially retract the XMRV-chronic fatigue syndrome paper?

Nature Medicine paper by former Montreal Heart Institute researcher Zhiguo Wang unlikely to be retracted

We’ve been reporting on the case of Zhiguo Wang, the Montreal Heart Institute researcher who was dismissed earlier this month for scientific misconduct. In the announcement about Wang’s dismissal, the institute said it had requested the retraction of three papers other than the two that Wang had himself retracted earlier this summer, making a total of five.

We’ve been following up with journals that published Wang’s work, with the help of eagle-eyed Retraction Watch readers, and last week reported on the first of those three additional retractions, in the Journal of Cell Science. Late last week, we heard from Juan Carlos Lopez, the chief editor of Nature Medicine, which had published a paper by the group. Lopez had earlier said he was waiting for a Montreal Heart Institute report on their findings. He tells us it’s unlikely the Nature Medicine paper will be among those retracted: Continue reading Nature Medicine paper by former Montreal Heart Institute researcher Zhiguo Wang unlikely to be retracted